BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Angiographic revascularization grading after intra-arterial stroke therapy is limited by poor standardization, making it unclear which scale is optimal for predicting outcome. Using recently standardized criteria, we sought to compare the prognostic performance of 2 commonly used reperfusion scales. METHODS: Inclusion criteria for this multicenter retrospective study were acute ischemic stroke attributable to middle cerebral artery M1 occlusion, intra-arterial therapy, and 90-day modified Rankin scale score. Post-intra-arterial therapy reperfusion was graded using the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) and Modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) scales. The scales were compared for prediction of clinical outcome using receiver-operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: Of 308 patients, mean age was 65 years, and median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 17. The mean time from stroke onset to groin puncture was 305 minutes. There was no difference in the time to treatment between patients grouped by final TIMI (ie, 0 versus 1 versus 2 versus 3) or mTICI grades (ie, 0 versus 1 versus 2a versus 2b versus 3). Good outcome (modified Rankin scale, 0-2) was achieved in 32.5% of patients, and mortality rate was 25.3% at 90 days. There was a 6.3% rate of parenchymal hematoma type 2. In receiver-operating characteristic analysis, mTICI was superior to TIMI for predicting 90-day modified Rankin scale 0 to 2 (c-statistic: 0.74 versus 0.68; P<0.0001). The optimal threshold for identifying a good outcome was mTICI 2b to 3 (sensitivity 78.0%; specificity 66.1%). CONCLUSIONS: mTICI is superior to TIMI for predicting clinical outcome after intra-arterial therapy. mTICI 2b to 3 is the optimal biomarker for procedural success.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Angiographic revascularization grading after intra-arterial stroke therapy is limited by poor standardization, making it unclear which scale is optimal for predicting outcome. Using recently standardized criteria, we sought to compare the prognostic performance of 2 commonly used reperfusion scales. METHODS: Inclusion criteria for this multicenter retrospective study were acute ischemic stroke attributable to middle cerebral artery M1 occlusion, intra-arterial therapy, and 90-day modified Rankin scale score. Post-intra-arterial therapy reperfusion was graded using the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) and Modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) scales. The scales were compared for prediction of clinical outcome using receiver-operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: Of 308 patients, mean age was 65 years, and median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 17. The mean time from stroke onset to groin puncture was 305 minutes. There was no difference in the time to treatment between patients grouped by final TIMI (ie, 0 versus 1 versus 2 versus 3) or mTICI grades (ie, 0 versus 1 versus 2a versus 2b versus 3). Good outcome (modified Rankin scale, 0-2) was achieved in 32.5% of patients, and mortality rate was 25.3% at 90 days. There was a 6.3% rate of parenchymal hematoma type 2. In receiver-operating characteristic analysis, mTICI was superior to TIMI for predicting 90-day modified Rankin scale 0 to 2 (c-statistic: 0.74 versus 0.68; P<0.0001). The optimal threshold for identifying a good outcome was mTICI 2b to 3 (sensitivity 78.0%; specificity 66.1%). CONCLUSIONS:mTICI is superior to TIMI for predicting clinical outcome after intra-arterial therapy. mTICI 2b to 3 is the optimal biomarker for procedural success.
Authors: Pooja Khatri; Joddi Neff; Joseph P Broderick; Jane C Khoury; Janice Carrozzella; Thomas Tomsick Journal: Stroke Date: 2005-10-13 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Wade S Smith; Gene Sung; Jeffrey Saver; Ronald Budzik; Gary Duckwiler; David S Liebeskind; Helmi L Lutsep; Marilyn M Rymer; Randall T Higashida; Sidney Starkman; Y Pierre Gobin; Donald Frei; Thomas Grobelny; Frank Hellinger; Dan Huddle; Chelsea Kidwell; Walter Koroshetz; Michael Marks; Gary Nesbit; Isaac E Silverman Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-02-28 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Osama O Zaidat; Albert J Yoo; Pooja Khatri; Thomas A Tomsick; Rüdiger von Kummer; Jeffrey L Saver; Michael P Marks; Shyam Prabhakaran; David F Kallmes; Brian-Fred M Fitzsimmons; J Mocco; Joanna M Wardlaw; Stanley L Barnwell; Tudor G Jovin; Italo Linfante; Adnan H Siddiqui; Michael J Alexander; Joshua A Hirsch; Max Wintermark; Gregory Albers; Henry H Woo; Donald V Heck; Michael Lev; Richard Aviv; Werner Hacke; Steven Warach; Joseph Broderick; Colin P Derdeyn; Anthony Furlan; Raul G Nogueira; Dileep R Yavagal; Mayank Goyal; Andrew M Demchuk; Martin Bendszus; David S Liebeskind Journal: Stroke Date: 2013-08-06 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Michael P Marks; Maarten G Lansberg; Michael Mlynash; Stephanie Kemp; Ryan A McTaggart; Greg Zaharchuk; Roland Bammer; Gregory W Albers Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2014-03-31 Impact factor: 5.266
Authors: K M Thierfelder; W H Sommer; B Ertl-Wagner; S E Beyer; F G Meinel; W G Kunz; G Buchholz; M F Reiser; H Janssen Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Mohammed A Almekhlafi; Sachin Mishra; Jamsheed A Desai; Vivek Nambiar; Ondrej Volny; Ankur Goel; Muneer Eesa; Andrew M Demchuk; Bijoy K Menon; Mayank Goyal Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: Johannes Kaesmacher; Christian Maegerlein; Felix Zibold; Silke Wunderlich; Claus Zimmer; Benjamin Friedrich Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-07-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jinhao Lyu; Ning Ma; David S Liebeskind; Danny J J Wang; Lin Ma; Yang Xu; Ting Wang; Zhongrong Miao; Xin Lou Journal: Stroke Date: 2016-01-05 Impact factor: 7.914